Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

178 comments

/. response. (4, Funny)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783019)

Nothing for you to see here, please move along

70% appropriate.

Free jaws' willy (1, Funny)

SirWraith (796337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783022)

I think this means it is time for a half-jaws, half-free willy environmentalists movie. in the spirit of free willy, michael jackson will obviously be chosen for the theme. i see the theme as being, itself, a cross between "beat it" and "don't stop til you get enough." it's probably not a coincidence that this also seems to be his take on children.

Either you're with us you're with the sharks. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783025)

I am shocked to hear this kind of pro-shark fascism being spewed on Slashdot. As we all know, sharks are vile, evil creatures who are a danger and threat to all life and liberty.

Why do you hate America?

The other 30% (5, Funny)

yobjob (942868) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783027)

Are circling around Australian beaches.

Re:The other 30% (5, Funny)

Fire Dragon (146616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783115)

Nope, they went to law-school.

Re:The other 30% (5, Funny)

jaymz168 (555580) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783204)

Or are delivering candygrams.

Re:The other 30% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783633)

hence why they can get away with murder!

Re:The other 30% (1)

Lectrik (180902) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783129)

For a second I thought you said Austrian Beaches....
I'd pity those sharks, for now Hanz and Franz are going to pump *clap* them up.
Wait, then we'd be facing some sort of pumped-up, muscley shark that can probably run around on dry land with their massive muscles...
So long as they don't get ninja training, because we don't want them to flip out.
Then we'd all need some Shark Repellant Bat-Spray (I had to think where the bat went in there, because would you realy want to repel the Bat-Sharks?)

Re:The other 30% (1)

mattjb0010 (724744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783282)

Austria and Australia. Hamming distance = 2, physical distance ~= 7000 nm

Re:The other 30% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783349)

Also those sharks would have been able to run around dry land even before they got to austria, or they would have had one hell of a swim up the danube to get there...

Re:The other 30% (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783361)

*Ahem* The Hamming distance is only defined for strings of equal length. To compare 'Austria' and 'Australia', you'll need to concatenate two 'empty' characters to 'Austria'. Hence, the Hamming distance between them is 4.

Re:The other 30% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783436)

nanometres?! good grief, the world really is getting smaller...

Re:The other 30% (2, Informative)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783445)

You mean Levenshtein distance. The Levenshtein distance between Austria and Australia is 2. Hamming distance doesn't make much sense because the two words are different lengths.

Bad news? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783028)

This is a bad sign for the [...] journalists during slow news cycles.
Unless, of course, this is slashdot, and they can report on bad signs for real journalists...

By volume? (5, Funny)

Toba82 (871257) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783030)

Does this mean that the ocean is 30% sharks by volume? I AM NEVER SWIMMING AGAIN!

Re:By volume? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783179)

In other news, 30% of tourists swimming in the ocean eaten by sharks.

Re:By volume? (2, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783335)

Worse than that, the polar ice melting is exactly balancing out the extinction of sharks. If we didn't have global warming, you'd have to travel much further to go to the beach!!!

Or maybe we could just wring out all the sponges that are sitting at the bottom of the ocean.

Re:By volume? (1)

Grab (126025) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783415)

Or is it just that sharks are 70% smaller than they used to be?

midget sharks (2, Funny)

Mahou (873114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783531)

they prefer to be called little people eaters

To all alien tourists... (2, Funny)

Secret Rabbit (914973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783033)

... our waters are now 70% shark free! We are now the safest planetary water park in the galaxy for your children! Come now and get 20% off your water slide pass!

Offer only valid in the next 10 minutes.

We have a new #1. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783304)

Wow, that is the single lamest comment I've ever read on Slashdot. I've read quite a number of lame comments, too, so that's really saying a lot.

Is that like 70% Fat Free? (3, Funny)

GrpA (691294) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783035)

Because if it is, that means that the Oceans are now 30% shark, 70% water... Not a good mix. GrpA

Re:Is that like 70% Fat Free? (1)

AlphaBlade (629798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783081)

I wonder whether they count the water in the sharks as part of the sharks or as part of the water? What's the current dolphin percentage of the world's oceans?

Re:Is that like 70% Fat Free? (1)

DeltaHat (645840) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783689)

The bigger question is, are sharks watter soluable?

Batman! (5, Funny)

broothal (186066) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783038)

I blame Batman for dumping his anti-shark-spray into the ocean.

(if you get that joke you're really old)

Re:Batman! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783170)

Or enjoy movies out of the 6 dollar bin at walmart :)

Re:Batman! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783183)

if you get that joke you're really old

Thanks for reminding me.

Re:Batman! (1)

someguyfromdenmark (910971) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783395)

That's Shark Repellent-spray, batman...

Re:Batman! (1)

Duckz (147715) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783509)

Video [google.com] .

Re:Batman! (1)

KuRa_Scvls (932317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783515)

Holy Nightmare!

So this is (-1, Troll)

ET_Fleshy (829048) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783046)

news for nerds? O Rly...

Perhaps samzenpus should spend more time moderating and less time hunting dem shark

Re:So this is (1)

Lectrik (180902) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783109)

What are these ocean things you speak of?
They've got something to do with beaches, right?

Yes but... (4, Insightful)

sirnuke (866453) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783047)

What was the percentage in recent years? Assuming the trend is decreasing amount of sharks, how fast is it going? If ten years ago, the sharks percentage was decreasing at .0025/year, but now it's .005/year, that's probably really bad. If now the rate is now .001/year, that's more or less a good thing. At the highest point, what percentage of the ocean had sharks?

Kind of like having a 50% off sale without saying what the original or final price is. Sounds great...

Graphs are really nice.

Re:Yes but... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783113)

The summary misinterpreted the article (yeah, BIG surprise). They haven't found 70% of the ocean is NOW shark-free. They have found that, all along, sharks only inhabit about 30% of the available ocean regions.

What the study found was that below a certain depth (2000 metres) there appear to be no shark species, even though the typical shark prey extend down to much deeper than that. So, while the researchers had assumed that sharks would move throughout the water column, and more species of depth-loving sharks would be found, none were below about 2000m.

This means that all current known shark species exist in only 30% of the total ocean volume (over 70% being below that 2000m depth). Which means that they are all in close proximity to humans and human fishing activity. Which means that they may be more susceptible to overfishing of that area, since they seem unable to spread to lower ocean levels (the so-called abyssal region) to find more food sources. The linked article suggests that there might be a lack of food sources at lower depths, but another summary I saw mentioned the presence of fish species below this depth - which might indicate that either the fish are in too low a number to sustain the sharks; the sharks are incapable of going to the lower depths due to physiology; or they can't compete with other predator species at those depths (eg. squid?).

Of course, other studies have indeed shown declining shark populations, and decreasing sizes of adult sharks of various species (such as white pointers and whale sharks) which indicates that there is increasing pressure on shark populations by overfishing of both them and their food sources... but this study didn't look at that.

Re:Yes but... (1)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783360)

or they can't compete with other predator species at those depths (eg. squid?).

Whoa, shark competing with squids at 2000m depth! I bet it's cold down there. Maybe it can qualify for a 2010 Winter Olympics event!!

Re:Yes but... (2, Informative)

Grab (126025) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783422)

Whales and squid regularly do serious depths, and are presumed (from the evidence of scars on dead whales and squid parts inside dead whales) to fight each other. Not sure quite why - maybe for a whale, a squid is like a 50-foot fishburger, so it's worth the hassle?

Grab.

Bad for all of us (2, Insightful)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783050)

This is a bad sign for the sharks, the oceans and of course, journalists during slow news cycles.

Actually, if some shark species are threatened by extinction, that is bad news for all of us.

The savage overexploatation of our oceans is a terrible shame. I get furious when I read about EU subsedies keeping huge Spanish and British fishing fleets running.

Re:Bad for all of us (3, Informative)

aug24 (38229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783078)

Please ensure your facts are at least vaguely right!

About a minutes googling confirms that the Spanish fleet gets over half of the total EU fishing subsidy, while the British fleet gets about 5%.

(Incidentally, British waters contain about 40% of the fish. I (am English and) reckon we should quit the EU ASAP.)

Apart from that, I agree with you.

Justin.

Re:Bad for all of us (4, Funny)

Hektor_Troy (262592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783199)

Sure, but what about the poor Austrian fishermen? Why aren't you taking them into consideration with your "facts"?

Re:Bad for all of us (5, Funny)

tomrud (471930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783300)

> Sure, but what about the poor Austrian fishermen? Why aren't you taking them into consideration with your "facts"?

We should encurage them to get new jobs. In the Austrian Navy for example.

Re:Bad for all of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783818)

The Austrian Navy ? A dangerous profession. They are at a state of war with the Ethiopian Navy.

Re:Bad for all of us (1)

john83 (923470) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783907)

On a more serious note, the Swiss actually have one of the biggest merchant navies going!

Re:Bad for all of us (1)

99luftballon (838486) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783453)

You laugh but in a world where Switzerland can win the America's Cup anything is possible.

As for the original question it's illl-informed rubbish. British fishing fleets, on which I have worked, are being shut down at an unprecedented rates and the chances of a resurgence in numbers is about as likely as Satan going to work on a snowplough.

The main culprits are the large international factory fleets that catch indiscriminately and with little regard for local regulations. These are aided and abetted but the buyers not showing responsibility. It's all very well to bemoan the destruction of cod and tuna stocks but people are still ordering it in restaurants. We need a campaign to raise people's awareness that unless things change our kids won't be able to experience the joy of cod and chips.

Re:Bad for all of us (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783277)

Regardless of subsidies, from what I've read on the BBC's web site, the British fishing fleet has been catching fish at unsustainable levels for decades. It seems that in every country, the fishermen say the scientists are wrong and everything is A-OK, until they catch the last fish and wonder what happened to their fisheries.

Re:Bad for all of us (1)

william_w_bush (817571) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783480)

I agree completely. It actually reminds me of people who buy gas to drive to work for 30 odd years, till it suddenly triples in price and people start wondering what happened to all the damn oil.

Replace oil with any limited resource (land, water, beaches, hardwoods, ivory).

Would be easier if we just ran out of people.

Liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783812)

"Would be easier if we just ran out of people."

If you believed that, you wouldn't be here.
You'd have already gone postal AND suicidal.

Re:Bad for all of us (1)

aug24 (38229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783645)

Absolutely true. There is so much evidence (decreasing size of fish in catch, fewer shoals) that the 'but there must be loads, we never have any problem finding them' line is wearing very thin.

I vote we ban fish-finder technologies from all EU waters.

Justin.

Re:Bad for all of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783280)

I (am English and) reckon we should quit the EU ASAP.)

Wait a minute... you mean England is in the EU? Terribly sorry, I hope it's not too much trouble, but would you do me a favour and please let the rest of the English people know? Sorry, shouldn't grumble I know...

Re:Bad for all of us (1)

Kredal (566494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783375)

I'm not really sure where you're coming from on this. The UK is part of the EU, according to http://europa.eu.int/abc/governments/index_en.htm [eu.int] . Is this something that most English people don't know? That would be a lot like the United States not knowing that we were part of North America.

OK, bad example.

Re:Bad for all of us (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783921)

Well, at the same time that the Spanish fisherman get subsidies, the Dairy farmers are not allowed to produce enough milk to fill Spain's internal demand. Every summer, french farmers stop Spanish produce trucks heading north and throw all of the cargo away.

EU's fishing and agricultural policies are pretty screwed up, but don't think, even for one moment, that it's all lopsided in one direction. There's people in every country getting screwed by this.

Bad news for journalists during slow news? (2, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783051)

Apparently not, as they can just write another story about how there are fewer sharks than before.

Re:Bad news for journalists during slow news? (2, Funny)

(negative video) (792072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783184)

Yeah, but if they do it too often the story will ... wait for it ... jump the shark.

Are there fewer sharks than before?? (2, Informative)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783326)

The article's spin is that shark populations are dwindling, but what the scientists actually discovered is that sharks do not live in the oceans' abyssal zone, "in perpetual darkness at depths below 6,560 feet". One reasoning given for this is the lack of food at that depth. However, has abundant food ever existed there? Current pelagic trawl fishing nets only descend one half a mile [fishonline.org] , or 2,640 feet. In addition, sea conditions below 6,560 feet have only capable of being explored by one sea vessel -- the French bathyscaph Trieste -- at least according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] . So we have little research into whether fish populations are growing or shrinking at these depths.

But maybe shark's CAN'T live at these depths due to the lack of light and high water pressure? Most fish in the abyssal zone are pretty bizzare, including the Deep Sea Angler [ramseydoran.com] . Why aren't people worried that goldfish aren't down there?

And the whole "70% shark free" calculation is based on the fact that 70% of the ocean's volume is below 6,560 feet.

In conclusion, it's nice to know that sharks do not live at the great depths of the ocean, but there's much to learn about that environment before one can form a relationship between that fact and overfishing.

Survival of the fittest (1)

Jamu (852752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783066)

The ones that are left obviously ate the ones in the other 70%.

If I recall... (3, Informative)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783077)

100 Million per year are caught.

http://www.bigmarinefish.com/sharks.html [bigmarinefish.com]

Da da. Da da. Da da.....

(Sorry sharkies.)

You would be in trouble if... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783489)

you forgot it in the length of time that it took you to get the link, read it, AND then post it. So that is not really a case of IIRC.

And the LAND sharks?! (1)

onlysolution (941392) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783088)

The article neglects to cover the numbers of land sharks still roaming the earth. Despite their service to candygram distributors the seem to have fallen from public notice as of late.

Re:And the LAND sharks?! (1)

rudeboyintrouble (953095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783549)

Salsa shark...

Or read the abstract? (4, Informative)

Ksisanth (915235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783104)

See online journals of the Royal Society [royalsoc.ac.uk] -- it can be found under Proceedings of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences titled "The absence of sharks from abyssal regions of the world's oceans".

We propose that they are excluded from the abyss by high-energy demand, including an oil-rich liver for buoyancy, which cannot be sustained in extreme oligotrophic conditions. . . . All populations are therefore within reach of human fisheries, and there is no hidden reserve of chondrichthyan biomass or biodiversity in the deep sea.

Re:Or read the abstract? (1)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783373)

I have an idea... why don't we melt the polar icecaps so that the sharks have more space to swim around in. Wouldn't that increase the 70% to 75% or so? Clearly we must persue this goal.

Bloody disgrace! (1, Insightful)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783119)

I for one farewell our shark overlords.

I wish the Japanese would stop killing for fins. What gives them the right?

Re:Bloody disgrace! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783252)

Why is this modded 'flamebait' ? It's a factual comment, on-topic with the article, oh wait, this is slashdot, I forgot - never mind.

Re:Bloody disgrace! (1)

dc29A (636871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783510)


I wish the Japanese would stop killing for fins. What gives them the right?


They have the right because it's for "scientific experiments". Just like whales.

Re:Bloody disgrace! (2, Funny)

pilybaby (638883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783674)

What gives them the right?

That they're higher in the food chain.

Re:Bloody disgrace! (1)

coolcold (805170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783876)

Maybe the same right as killing cows, hens (even chickens!), ducks etc?

I'm an optimist (1)

Centurix (249778) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783127)

That's an ocean that's still 70% full of sharks...

Re:I'm an optimist (1)

Centurix (249778) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783133)

duh, posted without thinking.

Still an optimist, ocean is still 30% full of sharks...

* tumbleweed rolls across post.

Sharks aren't the only benchmark. (4, Insightful)

Shag (3737) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783146)

While sharks, as apex predators, are a good indicator of overall biodiversity / availability of tasty biomass in the oceans, figures on some other species are probably at least as alarming.

I've seen (at things like the UN informal consultative process on oceans and the law of the sea, and the 3rd global conference on oceans, coasts and islands just last month) presentations showing fisheries catch decade-by-decade worldwide, and the trends are just plain scary.

So many things are being done in totally unsustainable ways that popular tasty species have come close to being wiped out over large areas. Cod around Canada, for example. Tuna in some other areas.

I like tasty fish and don't want them to all go away. (Yes, here I am subscribing to sustainability defined as "making sure your grandkids get to hunt Bambi, too.")

Re:Sharks aren't the only benchmark. (2, Insightful)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783542)

Now would be a good time to learn to live without seafood. Granted, this isn't an option in nations where fish is a common staple in everyone's diet . . .

Fisherman can either stop fishing now or stop later when there are none left to catch. Fish farms or bust.

Re:Sharks aren't the only benchmark. (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783879)

Alternately, people could just eat the fish that's actually found near where they live. It'd be fresher and in most cases better for them. Of course, that does mean no Tuna for Nebraska. So sorry.

Re:Sharks aren't the only benchmark. (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783947)

My own pet project, which will likely never happen, to preserve biodiversity...

Cordon off a large area of ocean, certainly >100 sq mi, likely at least 10 times that. Ideally that area would straddle the continental shelf too, I would guess. Within that area, NO FISHING, and enforce with lethal means, if necessary. Fish right along the borders, but no fishing inside, whatsoever.

I think it would work, though I'm probably lowballing the required area. But I suspect the real problems are political. The area required is so big that it can't be done by one nation, since it would slop out into international waters. It would have to be established by international treaty. Then enforcement would be a problem, especially with respect to non-signatories. No doubt multiple preserves in different ocean areas would be better/necessary, too.

I was surprised to hear about the "collapse of the Atlantic cod fisheries" as a past fact in the last month on NPR. We're in a heap of trouble, and doing nothing to extricate ourselves, other than some farming of fish like salmon, catfish, trout, and tilapia. I like my proposal, because it leaves the concept of fishing intact, but it attempts to protect fish.

Lazers (1, Funny)

SecureTheNet (915798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783149)

Looks like the sharks with lasers on their heads are slowly taking over.

Say what?? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783150)

Now that's a short "article".

It doesn't even tell how shark free the oceans were before human influences.

Does that mean... (1)

Mister White (892068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783157)

...that the sharks are essentially as common as land? If so, count me out of that trip to Hawaii next summer...

This also begs the question: Which part of which ocean was this "proof" obtained in? I'd say the North Atlantic might be a lot more 'shark free' than, say, the Gulf of Mexico...

Bad reporting (3, Insightful)

bm_luethke (253362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783159)

I can't tell much of anything from this report.

It's 70% free compared to what? I don't know. As we explore the depths - do we have any baseline to compare too or is this normal? One possible explaination - what are the others? How good are the others?

The article cited is so horrid on this I can't get worked up over it. I have no idea what the 70% means, is this compared to known baselines or less than someone somewhere expected, or is it something else?

I suspect that the original scientific article would clear much of this up, but the report quoted is about as horrid as one can get. I'm not sure if you tried you get any less informed from this. Maybe it has dire ecological warnings - but all I can get is "Someone somewhere thinks something might not be what they expect but have never observed" - which isn't much to get worried over.

At least it didn't make the front page of slashdot.

Re:Bad reporting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783208)

See my post above. [slashdot.org]

Re:Bad reporting (4, Informative)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783342)

It's 70% free compared to what?

Only the Slashdot artcile has the "Now 70% Free" spin.

Once I noticed this and reread the article, it made a lot more sense -- but it's still a crap article. There's no mention of who the international team of scientists that conducted the study are, and therefore no connection with the scientist quoted and the study. It seems as if the quoted scientist used his opportunity to be quoted in an article to express concern about a real problem, overfishing, without actually knowing about the study itself. Unfortunately the writer took this spin and put it into the opening paragraph and completely threw off the importance of the study.

What really seems to have been discovered is that there aren't sharks 5,280 feet below sea-level. The original study suspects this is because there's no fish to eat down there, which is a pretty obvious fact considering there's no light down there and very high water pressure. And considering 70% of the world's ocean mass is below 5,280 feet, therefore sharks are not in 70% of the ocean.

Re:Bad reporting (2, Informative)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783555)

What really seems to have been discovered is that there aren't sharks 5,280 feet below sea-level. The original study suspects this is because there's no fish to eat down there, which is a pretty obvious fact considering there's no light down there and very high water pressure.

There ARE fish there, but not in enough numbers to sustain sharks. Check here [pbs.org] , or even better, see David Attenburoughs fantastic series The Blue Planet [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Bad reporting (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783358)

It just means that 70% of the world's water doesn't have sharks in it. Oddly enough, it's the same 70% that's too deep, dark, and empty of food animals to sustain sharks. The report basically says "sharks live where they can, don't live where they can't, and the habitable region of the water is 30% of the total volume."

Sharks are not gone. The article is wrong. (0)

master_p (608214) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783185)

They are currently being mounted with lazers in secret labs! the /. crowd should have known that!

Of course, they left the oceans ! (2, Funny)

javaDragon (187973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783249)

Now they live in Lawyer offices.

Re:Of course, they left the oceans ! (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783355)

So, is that evolution or degeneration?

That's right, make jokes while the ecosystem dies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783255)

And make some plans for what you will do for food in 2012.

I starve last (3, Funny)

Ugly American (885937) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783267)

And make some plans for what you will do for food in 2012.

I've made my plans; they involve some fava beans and a nice chianti.

In related news..... (1)

damsa (840364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783269)

Television shows have gotten 70% much better.

SharkWeek. (1)

CCFreak2K (930973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783339)

Is it time for more MythBusters Shark Week yet?

Interesting development (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783353)

So lawyers play golf now instead of going on cruises. Who'd have guessed...

Quoth the sharks... (3, Funny)

Kredal (566494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783370)

"So long, and thanks for all the surfers"

Keep an eye out for Vogons, people.

Confusing Article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14783432)

The article states that the world's oceans are largely Sharkless.

Kinda like the World is 70% water and of that 70%, you would only find sharks in 30% of it. So basically, it is saying that the absence of sharks from what everyone would assume is safe zones in the middle of nowhere can't be assumed because they can't find those supposedly safe sharks that are maintaining the hidden population. So... the sharks that are caught every year are the population and thus... we are putting the sharks into danger.

That was my interpretation.

Yeah... (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783443)

but they're still 30% shark!

Surprised no one else has asked... (3, Funny)

unitron (5733) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783625)

So does this decline mean that sharks have jumped the shark?

Is this like 97% fat free . . . (1)

fajoli (181454) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783644)


The oceans are 30% shark? Yipes.

So I guess this means (2, Funny)

rpjs (126615) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783663)

That we aren't going to need a bigger boat after all.

Candygram... (2, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783684)

In related news, 40% of the Earth's land area is infested with sharks. Scientists blame evolution while religious leaders said it was some god's punishment for something they hate and lots of people enjoy or something.

Save the freaking lasers!!! (0)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783727)

This is a bad sign for the sharks

Not to mention freakin lasers!!

Some bad math (1)

techstar25 (556988) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783827)

If 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by oceans and 30% of that is sharks, that must mean that 21% of the Earth is covered by SHARKS!

70% Shark free means (1)

dmatos (232892) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783836)

More of that oceany good taste without the shark to expand your waistline.

99% fat free means the food is 1% fat. I guess we can now conclude that the ocean is 30% shark.

Sharks are smart (1)

portwojc (201398) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783912)

Scientists do not know why sharks are absent from the deep, but suggest one possible reason might be a lack of food

Unlike people they move to where the food is?

Sharks also have a high demand for oxygen too. How much oxygen is available in the water at those depths?

And the missing sharks are now (1)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14783919)

employed at law firms around the world.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...